R v Hanratty (James) (Deceased)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Mantell,Mr Justice Leveson |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Crim 1141 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 199902010 S2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 10 May 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Crim 1141
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Lord Justice Mantell
Mr Justice Leveson
Case No: 199902010 S2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Mr Michael Mansfield QC and Mr Henry Blaxland QC (instructed by Bindman and Partners) for the Appellant
Mr Nigel Sweeney QC, Mr Mark Dennis and Mr David Perry (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown
This is the judgment of the Court
INTRODUCTION
On the evening of Tuesday 22 August 1961, Michael Gregsten and Valerie Storie were together in a grey Morris Minor car in a cornfield at Dorney Reach, Buckinghamshire. It was getting dark, when they were approached by a man who threatened them with a gun. On his instruction, the car was driven onto the A6. In the early hours of the following morning, at a lay-by south of Bedford, Michael Gregsten was shot twice at close range; he died almost instantly. Valerie Storie was raped and also shot: of approximately seven bullets fired, five entered her body. Miraculously, although she was left for dead, she was not killed; she did, however, suffer a catastrophic injury which resulted in paralysis to the lower part of her body. She was later able to describe the man responsible and provide considerable detail both of the events of the night and of what had been said.
On 14 October 1961, following an extensive police investigation, James Hanratty was charged with capital murder. Committal proceedings took place between 22 November and 5 December 1961. He was indicted only for capital murder; there was no charge in relation to Valerie Storie in accordance with the then practice.
The trial commenced before Gorman J and a jury on 22 January 1962. 83 witnesses were called as part of the prosecution case, James Hanratty and 14 others were called on behalf of the defence and 3 were called in rebuttal (of an alibi disclosed for the first time when Mr Michael Sherrard, for the defence, opened his case). The trial having lasted what was then a record 21 days, on 17 February, James Hanratty was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
An appeal was mounted before the Court of Criminal Appeal; it was heard on 13 March 1962 by Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth and Fenton Atkinson JJ. The grounds of appeal which were pursued were that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence; the learned judge failed properly or fully to put the defence to the jury; and the learned judge misdirected the jury as to the evidence and/or failed adequately or properly to sum up on the issues raised upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution. There was no application to adduce further evidence.
As to the first ground, giving the judgment of the court, Lord Parker CJ observed that "there was abundant evidence which, if accepted by the jury, would support the verdict". In relation to the other points, the Lord Chief Justice went on:
"Mr Sherrard � referred to a number of points which he says the Judge failed to make and certain evidence to which he failed to refer. This was a case lasting 21 days � and it would indeed be remarkable if every item of the evidence were referred to and in which the Judge referred to every point or comment made by Counsel on either side. Indeed, we would emphasise that it is no part of the Judge's duty to refer to all the evidence or to mention all the points taken and comments made. His duty is to present the case on each side fairly and impartially to the jury concentrating of course on the vital issues in the case."
In dismissing each of the grounds advanced, he went on to observe:
"[T]he summing up was clear, it was impartial, it was not only fair but favourable to the prisoner and contained no misdirections of law and no misdirections in fact on any of the important issues in the case. The Court is of the opinion that this was a clear case."
On 4 April 1962, just over 7 weeks after his conviction and 7 1/2 months after the killing, James Hanratty was executed. It is worth observing that he was one of the last to suffer that penalty in this country. On 9 November 1965, by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, capital punishment was abrogated, initially until 31 July 1970, but thereafter, by affirmative resolution of both Houses, permanently. It now offends Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In the years which have followed, there has been a vigorous campaign to establish that the conviction constituted a miscarriage of justice. In July 1963, Fenner Brockway submitted a dossier to the Home Office; on 2 August 1963, during an early day motion in Parliament, the Home Secretary of the day rejected calls for an enquiry into the conviction. In 1967, following a Panorama television programme, the then Home Secretary appointed a senior police officer to undertake an inquiry into the alibi evidence. He reported that the conviction was safe. On 1 November 1967, the Home Secretary made a Commons statement to that effect. There were further references to the case in the Houses of Parliament in 1969, 1971 (when a new inquiry was refused) and 1972.
In 1974, the then Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, appointed Lewis Hawser QC to conduct an inquiry. Messrs Bindmans (who continue to act for the Hanratty family) forwarded submissions. On 10 April 1975, Mr Hawser concluded that the case against James Hanratty was 'overwhelming'.
On 13 July 1994, further submissions were made to the Criminal Cases Unit of the Home Office. On 1 April 1997, responsibility for considering alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("the Commission") who took over responsibility for investigating the allegations as to James Hanratty's conviction. Having conducted further enquiries (including obtaining DNA evidence), on 26 March 1999, the Commission referred the conviction to this Court pursuant to section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The Commission stated, in accordance with the statutory provisions, that there was a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld.
The referral has been followed by Perfected Grounds of Appeal which rely on 17 grounds. These grounds overlap. Eleven are based on failures by the prosecution to disclose material to the defence, one concerns the conduct of the identification parade at which Valerie Storie identified James Hanratty, one relates to the interviews (and is supported by E.S.D.A. testing of interview notes) and four deal with directions given during of the course of the summing up (all but one based on stricter standards introduced since 1962).
On 17 October 2000, in the light of the DNA evidence then available, this Court ordered that the body of James Hanratty be exhumed for the purposes of obtaining specimens of his DNA. Extensive further scientific evidence has since been assembled.
In addition to raising factual issues the appeal has required us to consider issues of law which are of general importance as to the role of this Court in relation to fresh evidence relied on by the prosecution as well as the appellant. The appeal also raises the vexed question of how the changes in standards over the years affects appeals against convictions following trials which took place prior to those changes. We will deal with these issues after we have set out the facts
THE FACTS
It was about 5.30pm on Tuesday 22 August 1961 that Michael Gregsten, aged 36, and Valerie Storie, aged 23 (who were both Civil Servants employed at the Road Research Laboratory at Langley, Buckinghamshire) met after work. Using a borrowed grey Morris Minor car, 847 BHN, they went to the Old Station Inn, Taplow, for a drink. They left the Inn at about 8.45pm and drove to a nearby cornfield at Dorney Reach. About 30�45 minutes later, as it was getting dark, a man approached the vehicle and tapped on the driver's window. Valerie Storie could see from his shoulders to his waist: he was wearing "a dark suit and a white shirt and a tie�a very smart looking suit". Michael. Gregsten dropped the window halfway down whereupon a gun was thrust through the window and the man said: "This is a hold up. I am a desperate man. I have been on the run for four months."
After taking the ignition key from Michael Gregsten, the man, whose face was partially covered with a handkerchief, got into the back of the car. He remained with the couple for a period of about six hours. Initially, he told them that 'You will be all right if you do as I tell you'. They remained in the field until about 11.30pm. Thereafter, the car went on a rather roundabout journey through the Northwest outer suburbs (Slough, Kingsbury, St Albans) and on to the A6 where the murder took place.
A considerable amount of conversation took place during the following six hours. In the light of the emphasis placed by both sides on the extent to which what was said did or did not fit with James Hanratty, it is worth summarising the evidence which Valerie Storie gave about what he said. This included that:
i) He had not had the gun very long: "This is like a cowboy's gun: I feel rather like a cowboy". � "It is a.38".
ii) He had never shot anyone.
iii) He was very hungry, he had not eaten for two days and had been sleeping out the last two nights (which Valerie Storie thought was contradicted by his appearance); he had been in the Oxford area for the last few days. On any showing, these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Jones v R
...... evidence served by the prosecution if it is in the interests of justice to do so: see Hanratty [2002] 2 Cr.App.R. 30 at paragraphs 101 to 105. We shall consider the substance of the evidence ......
-
William Beck V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...HM Advocate 2010 SCCR 473, Lord Carloway, delivering the Opinion of the Court, at paras [35] and [36] and citing R v Hanratty (dec'd) [2002] 3 All ER 534, Lord Woolf CJ at para 98). [44] In Simpson v HM Advocate 1952 JC 1, the Lord Justice General (Cooper) said (at 3) that: "It is always th......
-
R v Kenneth James Noye
...repeated it. 29 This approach has been consistently followed in this court (see for example R v Hakala [2002] EWCA Crim 730; R v Hanratty, deceased [2002] 3 All ER 534; R v Ishtiaq Ahmed [2002] EWCA Crim 2781; R v Harris [2006] 1Cr App R 5; R v Dunne and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1371; R v Bu......
-
Wheatley and Another v Commissioner of Police of the British Virgin Islands
...154, CA R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Osman [1990] 1 WLR 277; [1989] 3 All ER 701; 90 Cr App R 281, DC R v Hanratty, decd [2002] EWCA Crim 1141; [2002] 3 All ER 534, R v King (David) [1987] QB 547; [1987] 2 WLR 746; [1987] 1 All ER 547; 84 Cr App R 357, CA R v Milne [1992] LRC (C......
-
Fresh Evidence and Factual Innocence in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal
...transcript 14 March 2000].3. For a discussion on the two interpretations of ‘unsafe’, see Lord Woolf’s judgment in RvHanratty [2002] 2 Cr App R 30. Seealso S. Roberts, ‘“Unsafe” Convictions: Defining and Compensating Miscarriages of Justice’ (2003) 66(3) Modern Law Review441.4. See, for exa......
-
Table of Cases
...71 R. v. Hanemaayer, [2008] ONCA 580 ........................................................................... 127 R. v. Hanratty, [2002] EWCA Crim 1141 ..................................................... 68, 72, 76, 77 R. v. Hanson and Ettridge, [2003] QCA 488 ...............................
-
‘Unsafe’ Convictions: Defining and Compensating Miscarriages of Justice
...Clarendon Press, 1996) 181.26 For a discussion on the two interpretations of ‘unsafe’ see Mantell LJ’s judgment in RvHanratty[2002] 2 Cr App R 30.27 [1999] 3 All ER 498, 503D-C.28 [1999] EWCA Crim 606.29 [1994] COD 504 CA.30 For a further example of the difficulties in satisfying this part o......
-
Silence on Legal Advice: Clarity but Not Justice?: R v Beckles
...It followed that the trial judge in that 2 Beckles v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 13.3 [2004] EWCA Crim 2766, [2005] 1 All ER 705.4 [2002] 2 Cr App R 30.5 Ibid. at [87] and [98–100].6 [2003] EWCA Crim 1977.7 Ibid. at [11]. 212 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF VIDEO IDENTIFICAT......